get past politeness - these people don't deserve it.

[acroyear]

A column in the 'Post this week really held back and shouldn't have pulled the punches it pulled.  Hanle,president of the Biotechnology Institute, tried to present a positive case for continuing to teach science, stating much of the obvious of that which everybody knows and simply doesn't care about when their own version of religion is at stake and the political motivations (re: control over other people) are being interfered with.

Quite simply, he gives them too much credit.

Waging War on Evolution - washingtonpost.com:

Non-scientific viewpoints deserve respect.

I'm sorry, but in science, they simply don't. In matters of policy, a recognition that there is an emotional factor involved should not preclude disposing of an argument based solely on that emotion.

Hanle, you had a national public forum at your disposal and the chance to make the truth known and you blew it.  These people are liars with no respect for scientific views, courtroom etiquette, or public ethics.  They will do anything they can get away with to see to it that their religion trumps all other forms of thought.  No amount of evidence will ever change their closed minds and the ignorance it breeds.

All your "politeness" and "respect" does is give them more credit than they could possibly deserve, and does nothing to help rational (but unexposed/uneducated) people realize their freedoms and their future really is at stake if these nutcases get their way.

It is impossible to be "tolerant" of views that if their holders achieve political means, will use that power to remove your own tolerant views in favor of their own intolerance.

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

These people are liars with no respect for scientific views, courtroom etiquette, or public ethics. They will do anything they can get away with to see to it that their religion trumps all other forms of thought. No amount of evidence will ever change their closed minds and the ignorance it breeds.

And saying so, bluntly and publicly, brings an overwhelming howl of flames for "bashing Christians" from not just the affected fundamentalists, but from the knee-jerk troops who believe in "The War on Christmas" and send out the spam emails saying "God is mentioned in every State charter and constitution, so maybe the ACLU just just STFU about the First Amendment, 'k?" not to mention the march of minions who have their fingers poised over the telephone pad and the send button in case Wildmon or Dobson tells them to swamp the FCC with complaints about something-or-other "For the sake of the chiiiiiiiildren!"

We're reaping the crop that I watched get planted in the 1970s, when the pro-Roe folks whispered "you know, they want to get contraception if they can" to an overwhelming chorus of scoffings. And what's happening now? Contraception reclassified as "chemical abortion" - and a spate of lawsuits on "conscience clauses" that permit an ever-widening group of people to force their religious choices on those around them... blindly oblivious to the hypocracy of claiming that doing so is their right, while anyone else doing the same to them is oppression.

I actually agree with what you say, but unless you can find a way for the message to get through the well-drilled chorus of "Christian bashing! Oppression!" then the people who need to hear it won't even recognize what was said.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

well, the fact that at this point i'm so sick of the insanely hypocritical right (Foley, anyone?) is why i'm NOT writing stuff printable in a major newspaper. certainly there are ways to combine the truth with the force needed without, maybe, giving up the tact i have so little of sometimes. ;-)

the end point of this is to point out how UNchristian-like these people all are. you don't profess to want the 10 commandments as a monument in a courtroom and then proceed to bear false witness (which both the ID side and Ron Moore did).

i've got a post coming based on a George Will column from yesterday where he says that "usually", common sense and conservatisim equate (he says they don't with no child left behind, and then proceeds to support that using heavy-statistical evidence based reasoning, which is HARDLY "common sense" anymore, and probably never was). that one I *am* thinking through with an eye for tact and potential publishing. i'd have worked more on it except my limited writing vibe was used up on the faire "magic" feedback topic.

Science vs. Religion

[siegfried1.livejournal.com]

My personal take is that the two shouldn't ever intersect. Science tries to discover what is happening (how). Religion (in all its forms) tries to discover meaning (why). The problems occur when the two worlds collide.

Evolution is a prime example. Religious groups put forth a "scientific" explanation without any basis in fact. Science gets itself into an uproar and the fur flies.

Let Science formalize evolution, and Religion stick to giving life meaning.